"It is still sad that this is the best that can be said of the world’s most powerful democracy."

What is really sad is The Economist does not understand that the US form of Government is a Representative Republic - But The Economist shoudl not feel badly, Obama would like the US form of Government to be a dictatorship with him and his ruling class in charge.

some people may resent that only citizens of America should be able to vote - and that they should lonely be able to vote one time.
Unfortunately there are those who do not want voter Identification, and who still believe in the Chicago Machine motto - Vote early and vote often

and of course the Democratic lawmakers are saints, just in it for the people, people like Henry Waxman, George Miller, John Conyers and George Miller remained in Congress because they are universally loved.

Why do you think the Democrats don't gerrymander. Isn't it obvious every party will gerrymander if they control a majority at the time when they can? Also, the founding fathers strongly disliked democracy. In fact, only (white) male landowners could vote at the time since they were thought to have the largest physical stake in the county. We live in a republic, or used to, where laws matter more than democracy. Gerrymandering--just to use your predictable example--breaks no laws unless you make it illegal.

"Isn't it obvious every party will gerrymander if they control a majority at the time when they can?"
.
Please provide an example of a Democratically controlled state which gerrymanders.
.
"Also, the founding fathers strongly disliked democracy."
.
Not true. The US founding fathers created a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.
.
"We live in a republic, or used to, where laws matter more than democracy."
.
Again, the US has a representative democracy. Please do your homework before posting on this site.
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
.
"Gerrymandering--just to use your predictable example--breaks no laws unless you make it illegal."
.
A nonsense statement. For example, murder likewise breaks no laws unless you make it illegal.

You think Obama may ever get a chance to govern?
W got his chance bolstered by the unprecedented "political capital" brought about by 9/11, was instrumental in the implosion of our economy and severely damaged our credibility abroad.
Are Americans longing for that again?

In his 5th SONA two days ago, President Barack Obama deliberately refused to put Republicans and Teapartyers in a bad light before the American people, probably hoping against hope that for the remaining two-plus years of his tenure they will finally come around to the realization that they and the Democrats in Washington have been sent there by the American people to GOVERN, and not to engage in the destructive politics of stalemate, gridlock and "Gotcha!"

But at the root of their intransigence is the insidious intention to make President Obama and his Democratic colleagues to fail so that, by their Machiavellian calculation, they will be able to control both the Senate and the House by the elections of 2016.

They thus are not wasting any emotion worrying about whether or not the American people have anything to say about their destructive behavior.

Wonderful thinking. How about asking your Representative to use his nogging and think about how to work with Democrats to pass some useful legislation? Why do you immediately assume without even looking at what is being proposed that it must be rejected, that there is nothing your opponents propose that is worth listening to? No wonder Congress is paralyzed. That is not how past Congresses passed Social Security, civil rights legislation, Medicare, GI bill for education after WWII,etc. without which this country would be not a very attractive place to live in.

See because most of that stuff you mentioned is none of the federal government's business.

Where in the enumerated powers of the constitution does it authorize the federal government to setup SS, or Medicare etc? Hint it doesn't.

In general the only legislation I'm interested in the federal government passing are laws that reduce government overreach. Such as ending the unconstitutional war on drugs.

Note, I'm not against government all together, but I believe in one limited by the constitution. Also the police powers belong to the state not the federal government.

If there's anything important enough that the federal government should do it that's not authorized by the constitution, then we should pass an amendment. For example, I might be willing to pass one giving limited environmental regulation to the federal government (although MUCH less than what the EPA is now doing). Because there are some problems that the states probably can't handle well because pollution crosses state lines.

I see. I assume you are so well off that you will not be collecting Social Security checks nor will you be using Medicare in your lifetime. And of course states should be free to pass racial discrimination laws, and corporations should be free to dump whatever toxic chemicals they feel like into the environment. What if a state allows pollution that affects another state?
Just because the Constitution does not mention computers or cars does not mean the Federal government has no business using them or funding research that led to the internet. Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government should fund basic research?
Where in the Constitution does it say that people are allowed to have guns without any regulation? There are many ways of interpreting the constitution as there are many ways to interpret the Bible. Literal interpretation of any text is a mindless and destructive occupation.

1. I would be VERY happy if I didn't have to pay into SS, and could therefore put the extra 12.4 of my pay into a 401k plan. I would get FAR more return than that SS is going to get.

2. Same with Medicare. I would be happy to keep my money and get the government and it's cost raising distortions out of the market. (of course Medicare as we know it will be ending soon anyway, the idea of unlimited medical care at other people's money will soon end, because we will run out of other people's money as the baby boomers retire)

3. Glad you brought up racial discrimination by governments, this was something that people thought was important enough to pass a constitutional amendment. I fully support stopping government's from discriminating. I think individuals should be free to discriminate, and lose all that business if they want. For example, do you really think that the reason people don't discriminate on the basis of race anymore is because of a law? Also, why do you think the civil rights movement happened, it's because people the majority of people had finally realized discrimination was wrong.

4. Did you read my answer at all, I specifically noted some environmental laws as something I might be willing to accept at the federal level, for exactly the reason you noted. Please pay attention.

5. Using a car yes, using money to provide the research no. The constitution doesn't authorize it (states of course could). An exception of course would be military research, which would be authorized by the constitution.

6. Agreed that two people can read the same thing and at times come to a different conclusion. That being said, we should strive to keep things as literal as possible, and use an originalist interpretation. IE what was the intent behind the law at the time it was written.

You miss the point about SS and Medicare. If you have a high income and are savvy about investments of course you will do better investing it yourself. However, poor people do exist in this country and can barely make it month to month so they cannot invest for retirement or medical insurance. There are also people who make poor investments and end up with very little saved at the end. What the government provides is a security net that ensures you will not be indigent in your old age. Before these programs existed the highest percentage of poor people was among the aged, they have literally wiped out poverty for those who no longer work. Nowadays the highest percentage is among children, the country is wealthy enough to eliminate that but any attempt is denounced as socialism.
It is fair that people who have lots of money be taxed to help people with modest means, that is what being a nation that cares about its citizens is all about.
Voluntary charity rewards the selfish and heartless. The idea that individuals are only responsible for themselves or at most their immediate family leads to a Darwinian survival of the fittest. You also missed the point about basic research. Private corporations interested in short term profits will not invest in research that may never bring any profits to it. There used to be great private research labs (Bell Labs, Westinghouse, Xerox, etc) they have all atrophied in a relentless attempt to optimize business models.
Following your logic federal research laboratories should not exist, neither should NASA, NIH, NSF nor DOE. The country has benefited enormously from them and would be a much poorer place without them.

Question, is SS supposed to be a retirement program or a welfare program?

If a retirement program, then something like the Australian or Chilean model is FAR better. People get to own their assets and pass them on. Moreover the money is invested in the productive private sector instead of the generally unproductive public one (ie treasury bonds like the SS fund).

If you are worried about poverty in the elderly, then that would best be addressed by a welfare program. Though this would still be a state function not a federal one until a constitution amendment gives the federal government the legal right to run one.

"It is fair that people who have lots of money be taxed to help people with modest means, that is what being a nation that cares about its citizens is all about."

Boy you're pretty generous with other people's money...

"Following your logic federal research laboratories should not exist, neither should NASA, NIH, NSF nor DOE. The country has benefited enormously from them and would be a much poorer place without them."

If any of the country really deems any of those THAT important that the federal government should be doing it AGAIN there is a legal way to give the federal government that authority. that hasn't happened.

I don't mind paying higher taxes if people are helped by them (and I pay a higher % than many earning much more than I do). Neither should you. I do mind paying taxes for war misadventures but I pay them anyway as I have no say in the matter (other than complaining to my representatives). You assume that everybody is entitled to any % of the country's wealth they can grab, even if nothing was done to earn it (like inheriting it). I am not sure what you mean by legal authority, I thought that is what the Congress does when it votes a budget. Whether a law authorizing some expenditure is constitutional or not is not up to us, that is the role of the Supreme Court.

"You assume that everybody is entitled to any % of the country's wealth they can grab,"

If by grab, you mean earn, then in general yes. I don't believe it's the governments' job to "spread the wealth around" When a private person does that it's stealing, but suddenly when the government does it, it's somehow noble?

I do believe in taking care of my fellow man, but the best way to do it is through private charity, not by taking from someone else. This doesn't even get into all of the problems caused by government "charity". For example, the destruction of the family (in particular the black family) that was encouraged by welfare.

And not to mention the billions in waste that occurs from the government bureaucracy.

I would agree that we wasted trillions on an unnecessary war, and then lost a necessary one. But at least military spending is something the federal government is authorized to do.

"I see. I assume you are so well off that you will not be collecting Social Security checks (that he [unlike many who now receive the benefit of what was sold to America as our "insurance" but became somehow transformed into their "entitlement"] has probably been paying into his entire adult life & would therefore be entitled to if they had not made it insolvent) nor will you be using Medicare in your lifetime (same argument as Social Security). And of course states should be free to pass racial discrimination laws (Aren't state representatives elected by the same people as are the federal government's - only difference being they are much more answerable to their electorate than the multi million dollar campaign gleaning national types. Can you say front loaded conflict of interest?), and corporations should be free to dump whatever toxic chemicals they feel like into the environment (unlike your beloved Oba-Mugabe who has appointed Monsanto, Dow Chemical & 3 M's attorney of record to run the USDA. Giving the world's biggest known polluters complete & direct control over the very agency created to regulate their often criminal activity is always an excellent course of action)."
Where do people get the idea that millionaire representatives thousands of miles away, beholden to the corporations & oligarchs who fund the astronomical political war chests of those on both sides of every national race, have the slightest clue what are our needs or are somehow more responsive to the will of the people than some guy who represents you in the state capital & lives 4 doors down? Centralization & bureaucratization DOES NOT DEMOCRATIZE THE POLITICAL PROCESS! It has the exact opposite effect despite all propagandist rhetoric to the contrary.
There's a line from the movie "Forrest Gump" that keeps coming to mind as we continue to follow this ridiculous political course of action down the road to stagnant upward mobility. Let's face it: If you subscribe to the "Big Bang Theory", then even the universe has tried to show you that centralization is not a good thing.

The funniest reaction after Obama's speech has been the whining of Republican legislators about how Obama is going to try to get some things done without waiting for Congress to act. How does he dare not work with them? This from people who have vowed to fight anything proposed by Obama to ensure his presidency fails. A Congressional year that will be remembered mostly for the House voting over 40 times to repeal ACA and pass no legislation that had any chance of becoming law (other than naming airports and federal installations). 2013 will go down in history as the most sterile of all Congressional years. It will be difficult for 2014 to match it, but given that there are no changes in the House it may come close. It is true that Obama has not spent much time meeting with Republicans legislators lately, but experience has taught him that the only result from such meetings is acute gastric indigestion.

"The funniest reaction after Obama's speech has been the whining of Republican legislators about how Obama is going to try to get some things done without waiting for Congress to act. How does he dare not work with them?"

I know it's bad style to go ad-hominem, but you are really ignorant. Obama is proposing violating the constitution. Decent people have a problem with this.

Aha, so I guess every President before him has violated the Constitution. There is nothing in the constitution about many things the Federal government actually does. Until Obama in fact does something that violates the Constitution there is no reason to assume he will. We will soon see who is the true ignorant.

With a blatantly obstructionist opposition party in Congress this method of governance is understandable. Regardless, the issuance of executive order is ubiquitous and transcends political party. Do us all a favor and take your blinders off.

What specific things that Obama has proposed violate the Constitution? And if it does, won't the Supreme Court overrule him? Isn't that the way our system is supposed to work?

Or are you one of those cafeteria Constitutionalists who think you have a better understanding of the Constitution than the Supreme Court? It's find to disagree with the President, but to act like he is violating the Constitution every time he does something you disagree with is simply childish and counterproductive to your cause.

On the one hand, the budget deal does suggest that there has been a modest respite in the partisan gridlock, and Republicans have signaled that they may raise the debt ceiling without demanding a ransom. As the writer points out, there are several areas where compromise seems within reach - most notably on immigration.

On the other hand, this is an election year. Typically, the closer we get to election, the parties are more interested in posturing than in governing. Especially with House Republicans more concerned with primary challenges from the right than with Democrats in the general election, it makes me doubt if they will pass immigration reform when the conservative base (primary voters) regard it derisively as amnesty. Pressure to woo Hispanic voters will not be as acute as it would be for a presidential election.

An expanded EITC could probably pass, as well as the trade authorization, but I am less optimistic about the prospects for a minimum wage hike or universal pre-K. The only policies on the agenda that would count as major domestic achievements are universal pre-K and immigration reform.

Contrary to the writer, I think if Congress passed immigration reform it would be a huge deal.

Didn't everyone think that immigration reform would get done quickly after the 2012 elections too? This after Republicans were talking about making their message more appealing to Hispanics so they could stop losing? Nothing materialized from that either. Until it actually happens I'm going to remain skeptical.

"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistence. Remember that our sons and our grandsons are going to do things that would stagger us. Let your watchword be order and your beacon beauty." So much for Daniel Burnham's 1890's optimism.

Since we have a President who has no Idea of how to build relationships with Republicans, and for that matter not many Democrats and has put zero effort into it, he would rather name, blame, shame and game. People forget that He and Democrats completely thumbed their nose at Republicans in the first two years of his administration. He we very warm and open when during the early days he told Replublicans, election have consequences and Harry and Nancy were with him and didn't even let Republicans into any part of the discussions during those years. So, it is little wonder there is not much love coming from Republicans as Obama doesn't seem to know how to deal with people how have different positions than he does and find common ground. Going on TV to tell American what he is willing to compromise his hardly a receipt for successful working relations ships and as a result he has non. The only things that are working are gifts from the dreaded GWB, like the greatly increased oil production and this resulted from Bush implemented regulation relief that birthed the explosion in tracking and horizontal drilling, Obama's only significant action has been to greatly reduce the Federal lands drilling permits approved. So what really has Obama accomplished? Is the world a safer place after his 5+ years as President? Has the economy really recovered? Anyone who can read know the 8 million jobs claims is not true when measuring since he became President. Oh Yah, and the deficit claim, 2009 is disavowed because it was a Bush budget, and that is logical, the only thing is it also includes his 800+ billion dollar Obama stimulus package which accomplished very little. Well it did create some jobs, 46% of which were low paying jobs. I could go on but, the demonstrated management incompetence and scandals would take to many words to explain. So where is the beef?

What, precisely, do you imagine that President Obama could do differently that would "build relationships with Republicans"? As far as I can tell, absolutely nothing would be satisfactory. (Indeed, I suspect that if he were to resign from office, they would denounce that as somehow a devious plan to do damage to the nation.)
.
As for refusing to work with Republicans, I seem to recall that he and the Democrats Congress spend months modifying the Affordable Care Act in response to Republican demands -- only to have all those who they had been attempting to work with vote against it anyway. So what would constitute "working with Republicans" for you? Calling on Democrats to pass the Tea Party agenda without change? Or would even that be somehow a nefarious plot to destory America as well?
.
Forgive me if I am misjudging you. It may be that you are merely writing from a different universe. But from the one the rest of us live in, what you say doesn't particularly correspond what we see around us.

They spent months modifying the ACA to mollify swing state Democrats such as Sen. Landrieu and Sen. Nelson. The Republicans were told to buzz off because, after all, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority, and Rahm Emanuel decided to treat the Senate like the Cook County Board of Aldermen.

How could anyone have predicted that Massachusetts, of all places, would hand the Republicans a seat, throwing the smug Democrats into such a scramble that they had to use an extraordinary parliamentary maneuver to pass the bill?

Please tell me how Obama should have built relationships with Republicans who stated, from 2009, that they were going to show "united and unyielding opposition" to Obama at every corner and prioritized to make him a "one term president?"

Maybe you could tell us exactly when the President reached out to actually talk with Republicans and not just at them. Could it have been the televised show meeting he had with them? This was the only open meeting that occurred during development of ACA legislation. Republicans were not even allowed in the room as Reid and Pelosi held closed door meetings that excluded Republicans. The televised show meeting was nothing more that a typical Obama approach as he tried, but failed to embarrass Republicans. This president hasn't got a clue about how to build the personal relationships to be able to work with others who don't agree with him. All is "negotiation" occurs on TV with Obama talking to his audience and not with Republicans. Obama is divisive and will go down in history as the President who made greatly increased political divide The Divider in Chief. Please tell us, other than on TV, when did the President actually conduct serious discussions with John Beohner? in 5 years they can be counted on one hand.

When did Obama try? Where were these mystical meetings held and how much real sustained effort did he make. John Boehner is a reasonable and serious person, who has consistently demonstrated he welcomes dialogue with the President but he is not able to just invite himself. Maybe you can educate us about the Presidents skills and effort to build personal relationships. Anyone who has success in their profession as part of an organization realizes building personal relationships is key to getting things done, and even more important when one is dealing with people he doesn't agree with. This President has shown he doesn't know how to do this as Clinton did with Newt Gingrich, Reagan did it, both Bushes did it but this President just says, it is just not my style.

So what specific things could the Democrats have done to have gotten some Republicans support the bill? It seemed to me that the Republicans decided quite early that their strategy was to vote as a bloc and none would support the individual mandate (which I might remind you was first proposed by conservatives as an alternative to the single-payer system that liberal wanted). And given that Republicans refused to support it, of course the Dems would start modifying it to get the swing Dems to vote for it.

As jouris asked, can you name any specific change, short of gutting the entire bill, that would have garnered some Republican support?

And complaining of "extraordinary parliamentary procedures"? That is rich coming from a party who has used the filibuster an unprecedented number of times for things it was never used for before. Extraordinary indeed.

What could have convinced some moderate Republican Senators, such as Olympia Snowe or John McCain to support the bill? We'll never know, because they never tried.

The Democrats had the White House, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and they made certain to rub the Republican's noses in it to the point that even the most bipartisan of them refused to support it.

Actually, the writer displays a distinct lack of knowledge as to how the U.S. Gov't. works - or doesn't. Every president has used Executive orders to get done what they wanted. These last until one of three things happens: Congress, the Courts or the succeeding Occupant of the White House repeals or rescinds them. See: Andrew Jackson, FDR, Ronald Reagan, Wm. J Clinton etc., et al.

It's certainly a welcome development that the Tea Party lost it's credibility and that there probably aren't going to be more shutdowns. But the two parties still want to head in opposite directions on ~most of America's pressing issues and that isn't a sustainable arrangement. Continued deadlock seems likely even after Obama has finished his term.

Until that changes I think the gloom is still justified. My hope is that the left's populist answer to the Tea Party will propel the Democrats to a substantial victory that can break this deadlock, but it's far from certain that will develop in time for the 2014 elections (or ever).

Immigration reform and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit would be important, but these are relatively minor in the scope of things. If all of that happened our government would still be moving at ~5% of the speed it needs to be moving at

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you have any idea how the U.S. government should work? What the real and constitutional prerogatives of a president are? What you have written is drivel. Total tommyrot. The Tea Party is trying to emphasize that follwoing the Constitution is the right way to go. Are you just being coy and are actually on Obama's staff? God help you.

"The Tea Party is trying to emphasize that following the Constitution is the right way to go."

Unfortunately the problem is that many in the Tea Party have been trying to emphasize their unique radical interpretation of the Constitution and acting like anybody who disagrees with them doesn't respect the Constitution.

I always find it ironic when Tea Party members belittle the opinions of the SC when they disagree, yet it is the Constitution itself that says the SC is the ultimate arbiter of what and isn't Constitutional.

And that is why the Tea Party has lost credibility and most of us just roll our eyes when folks like Dwimby post their revisionist views.

If by radical you mean that way the constitution was interpreted for the first 150 so years, then yes. We want to return to an original reading of it, and not the twisted version that the Supreme Court approved after FDR's bullying in the 1930's.

A version where the federal government is one of limited an enumerated powers, and not one where the commerce clause has been twisted to allow the federal government to regulate almost anything and everything.

As I said, I find that logic ironic, and yes, it makes you a radical. Because the Constitution says that the CURRENT SC is the arbiter. Which means that according to the original Constitution, whatever the SC says now IS Constitutional. They get to decide, not you.

But somehow, because I believe in the whole Constitution, including the part that allows for the SC to interpret it (that doesn't mean I always agree with their rulings, it simply means that they get to decide what is Constitutional, not me or you), you come to the radical and illogical conclusion that somehow you care about the Constitution more than me.

And where in the Constitution does it say that you get to decide that? Doesn't it say that where there is disagreement as to what is and isn't Constitutional, the SC is the panel that decides?

No, separate but equal wasn't right, but at the time it WAS Constitutional because the SC said so. We are a nation of laws. And that means we have to abide by the judges decisions even though we disagree with them. And the beauty of the Constitution is that eventually the SC corrected themselves and the Constitution allowed that to happen and the Constitution also allows us to amend the Constitution when we disagree with the judges rulings.

What arrogance and disregard for the Constitution for you to act like you are a better judge than those who the Constitution specifically says are the judges.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of how law works. As I said, it is ironic that so many folks like you, who don't understand law, somehow think you can interpret it better than others. And again, why the Tea Party is being increasingly marginalized.

"Doesn't it say that where there is disagreement as to what is and isn't Constitutional, the SC is the panel that decides?"

No, it doesn't. Interestingly, the early Supreme Court decided that it was the final arbiter of constitutionality. See Marbury v. Madison (1803). And as the Wikipedia article below details, not everyone was on the same page. Jefferson stated to Justice Marshall: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." It would be considered settled law at this point, but it is not in the constitution.

Thanks adam c for the added info. I did not know that case... quite fascinating. The kind of reasoned post that adds to the discussion that I have always come to appreciate from TE readers. I have been increasingly disillusioned by the number of extremists who proselytize here and aren't able to see any viewpoint but their own. E.g. I suspect most of those who posted here still don't see the irony in their view of the Constitution.

As to Marbury v Madison, from my POV, the fact that it is settled Constitutional law does make it essentially part of the Constitution. But I can understand the nuanced difference you raised, so again thanks!! It is something worth pondering, that's for sure.

From a practical standpoint, I am curious if you know what alternative Jefferson thought should happen? Doesn't someone need to be the ultimate arbiter? Did he have an alternative solution? Given the three branch system, it seems logical to me that is exactly the role of the judicial branch. AND, since the Constitution can be amended, that does keep it from being the despotic oligarchy that Jefferson worried about.

And on the subject of irony, it is rather ironic that I am defending the SC. I have found many of their decisions to be puzzling, and they are different from my interpretation of the Constitution. But it is ludicrous for me to think that my opinion should count more than the justices in deciding whether or not something is Constitutional. And the beauty of our system is that if I disagree, the Constitution gives me a way to change it if enough others agree with me. I have great love and respect for the Constitution and deeply resent those who try to act like I don't.

Been awhile since law school, but I recall one view that each branch had an independent duty to ensure fidelity to constitutional limitations. Thus, theoretically, legislators would vote against bills because they were unconstitutional (even if they liked the bill); the executive would veto unconstitutional bills (even if he liked the bill); and the judiciary would strike down unconstitutional bills (even if they liked the bill).

With judicial review established, the other two checks seem very weak. Legislators and Presidents will stop unconstitutional bills they oppose, but few say I support policy X but think it is unconstitutional.

For more historical details, I suggest this Wikipedia page on judicial review in the U.S.

Yes, in theory that view makes sense, but to me, the problem is always that real life doesn't follow theory. (If it did, socialism would work... if everyone behaved as they were supposed to in theory) From my experience, it seems to me the operation details of any system, and how it handles exceptions, is often as important, sometimes even more important than the theory behind it.

So to me, the strength of any political system is how it functions when the theory breaks down. And I think historically (so far anyway), the U.S. system has handled the exceptions amazingly well. Even when we falter, we do eventually self correct. And judicial review is a well established, and IMHO essential, part of that system.

Interesting to me is that the precedent of judicial review was set in 1803, when the country was still young, and we've survived/thrived all these years with the precedent and no one has changed it via amendment. It's not like this is something new, so I find it hard to sympathize with the Tea Partier's who act like this is some grand new expansion of the Constitution. And it isn't like they don't believe in judicial review at all. When the courts limit the legislature they support it, but when the courts disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution, all of a sudden they are against it.

It's a welcome development in my opinion, generally for the sake of the country. You're welcome to disagree, but in my view anyone who wants to live 200 years in the past is a ridiculous extremist and should not be driving policy. You can't just ignore that the world has changed dramatically since then. Government shutdowns hurt a lot of people for your own benefit only, they should never have happened.

Back when the country was founded the only people who could vote were white male landholders. If you're going to go back 200 years, are you going to go back to that as well? Do you want to go back to when the Bill of Rights didn't apply to individuals within the states, only federally? Do you want to go back to when we all rode horses around and most of us died of infectious diseases? If we're going to go back we might as well go all the way back. Let's destroy our economy for good measure so we can more accurately replicate early America.

Or are you going to pick and choose which parts of early America suit you for your own modern benefit? I bet that's what is going on. And if you're just doing that, any claim to being fundamental American purists is just dishonest.

I still think the Tea Party can play a useful role in certain respects, but paleoconservatism is completely crazy in my view, especially in light of the challenges the country faces going forward and what has happened in the past.

Marbury v. Madison officially established judicial review. However, that ruling was based on the notion that judicial review is an implied power from Article III and Article VI of the Constitution. The two relevant passages:

Article III

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Appellate jurisdiction "As to law" is the most important bit here in terms of the implied power of judicial review.

Article VI (Supremacy Clause)

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."